Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. The present appeal has been preferred against a final decree of partition.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Partition Commissioner’s report was accepted behind the back of the appellant.

3. Moreover, it is submitted that the defendant no. 1/appellant did not have any notice of the commission work.

4. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 vehemently opposes such contentions and submits that the Partition Commissioner’s report itself reflects that notice was served on the defendant no. 1/appellant at every stage.

5. That apart, neither any written objection was filed to the Partition Commissioner’s report nor was any prayer made by the defendant no. 1/appellant to cross-examine the Partition Commissioner.

6. Learned senior counsel adds that the impugned final decree of partition has already been executed and his articles have been handed over to the defendant no. 1/appellant.

7. We find from a bare perusal of the Partition Commissioner’s report that notice of commission work was served at every point of time on the learned Advocate for the plaintiff as well the defendants.

8. In the event the defendant no. 1/appellant